House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Ministerial Statement Ministerial Statement Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:06): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement. Leave granted. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission was established by the state government on 19 March 2015 to undertake an independent and comprehensive investigation into the potential for increasing South Australia's participation in the nuclear fuel cycle, specifically in four areas of activity: expanded exploration, extraction and milling of minerals containing radioactive materials; the further processing of minerals and the processing and manufacture of materials containing radioactive and nuclear substances; the use of nuclear fuels for electricity generation; and the establishment of facilities for the storage and disposal of radioactive and nuclear waste. In May this year, the royal commission headed by a former governor of South Australia, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, delivered its final report to the government, providing 12 recommendations across these four areas of activity. In order to develop its response to the royal commission report, the government embarked on the biggest consultation program ever undertaken in the state. The program was led by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency (CARA) and was overseen by the advisory board chaired by the Hon. John Mansfield AM, QC. The process began with a citizens' jury of 50 people held in July 2016. The jury identified the waste disposal facility as the most significant aspect of the commission's report. This set the scene for the statewide engagement program, which focused on the jury's themes of safety, trust, community consent and economics. The program was ambitious and extremely far reaching, with visits to 120 places across the state, including more than 50 remote towns. In each location, an all-day drop-in centre was established, with team members and technical experts on hand to answer questions and talk to community members. An Aboriginal engagement program was designed with the assistance of Aboriginal leaders and included visits to 31 Aboriginal communities. The consultation program also included a website, online discussion forums, a community hotline, letterbox drops and a significant social media presence. A number of forums were also convened, including with school students, with the Aboriginal community services sector and with industry. I would like to extend my thanks to the team at CARA. The reach of the program is a testament to their hard work and dedication and a great example of the passion for community engagement that exists within the South Australian Public Service. At the past weekend the government released the Community Views Report that brings together the perspectives of more than 50,000 people who participated in this process—about 33,000 online and about 17,000 in person. The report reflects a wide range of views. Significantly, it shows that there are a substantial number of South Australians who would like the government to continue exploring the proposition to establish a high-level waste storage facility. A representative survey of 4,000 South Australians found that 43 per cent of people supported or strongly supported pursuing a nuclear waste disposal facility compared with 37 per cent opposed or strongly opposed. The consultation program ended with a second citizens' jury, this time consisting of more than 300 people. The jury deliberated for six days, hearing from more than 100 witnesses and considering the community feedback from the consultation program. Last Sunday, 6 November, I received a final report from the second citizens' jury marking the end of the consultation process. Today the government provides its response to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. The government supports the royal commission's finding that expanded uranium exploration and mining would provide economic benefits to the state and it accepts all five recommendations in this area. Most significantly, this means the development of a new statewide mineral exploration drilling initiative to support the discovery of new mineral deposits in South Australia with a particular focus on uranium. We accept the recommendation that relates to promoting and increasing the use of the cyclotron at the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI). In fact, I have already spoken to the Prime Minister about the potential to expand the activities of SAHMRI, and I will continue to work with the commonwealth to pursue these opportunities. In relation to energy, the government also supports the royal commission's recommendation to further collaborate with the commonwealth on monitoring and reporting on the development of new nuclear reactor designs. We also support the recommendation to promote and collaborate on the development of a comprehensive national energy policy that enables all technologies to contribute to a low-carbon energy system. This is consistent with the work we are already doing through COAG to pursue a national policy that ensures a low-cost, sustainable and reliable energy supply. The government has decided not to support the commission's recommendation to pursue the removal of the existing federal prohibitions on nuclear power generation. We recognise that, in the short to medium term, nuclear power is not a cost effective source of low carbon electricity for South Australia. The recommendation that the state pursue a high-level nuclear waste disposal facility was, of course, central to the community discussion about the royal commission report. The second citizens' jury was clear in its message of opposition to the proposal in its current form. In relation to the concerns raised by the citizens' jury about the economics of the proposal, there was a central theme. The theme was 'trust', and it was a clearly expressed lack of trust in the royal commission's finding and in the modelling underpinning the proposal. There was also a lack of trust in the ability of government to deliver and operate such a facility. Importantly, the jury also highlighted the lack of trust felt by Aboriginal South Australians whose history with the nuclear industry demonstrates a need for significant healing. The royal commission states that the government must have bipartisan political support and broad social consent in order to successfully deliver such a facility. The withdrawal of bipartisan support is significant. The government has always been clear that we need bipartisan political support on this issue and we have consistently reached out to the Liberal Party to maintain it. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his party's bipartisanship last week before he had even considered the views of the broader South Australian community; and, as I have already highlighted, the community views— Mr Gardner interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta is warned. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —on this subject are diverse. The responsibility of the government has been to make sense of these competing messages. On the one hand we have a citizens' jury providing a clear message that it does not support the government pursuing a nuclear waste storage facility and on the other we have the Community Views Report that shows more people than not wanting to continue exploring the issue. I believe we have started an important debate within the South Australian community. I support this debate, and I recognise that a large number of people would like the discussion to continue and I believe it should continue. Our judgement is that the only path to achieve social support is through a referendum, which will provide the broader community with the opportunity to consent or otherwise. The jury process clearly revealed a lack of trust in government to conduct this process, and a referendum will ensure that the decision-making remains in the hands of the community rather than politicians or the government. Similarly, for Aboriginal people, there was a great distrust from the non-Aboriginal community and an expectation that their views would simply be overridden by force of numbers. However, one of the most significant and positive outcomes of the jury process was that non-Aboriginal people took on the views of Aboriginal people and factored these views so heavily into their overall decision-making. Were bipartisan support restored and community support indicated through a referendum, the government would ensure a local Aboriginal community was given a final right of veto over any future facility on their lands. The government has carefully weighed up the diverse feedback received from the community and developed its response to ensure that all of that feedback is respected. We will not pursue policy or legislative change at this time. We will, however, continue to facilitate discussion and remain open to pursuing this opportunity for South Australia. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Schubert I call to order, and the member for Hartley.